Olga Kagan

Measurement across Domains: A Unified Account of the Adjectival and the Verbal Attenuative po-

Abstract: In the recent literature on gradable predicates, it has been argued that the notion of a differential degree (one that measures the distance between two values on a scale) plays a role in the semantics of both adjectival and verbal predicates. This paper provides further evidence in favor of this claim by putting forward a unified account of the prefix po- that attaches to Russian comparative adjectives/adverbs and the attenuative po- that combines with verbs. Building on Filip’s (2000) and Součková’s (2004a, b) analysis of the verbal po-, it is argued that po- is a single prefix whose function is to restrict the differential degree and which applies within the verbal, adjectival, and adverbial domains. In addition, this paper investigates the interaction of this prefix with verbs lexicalizing scales of different dimensions.

Previously Proposed Accounts

This chapter reviews a range of previously proposed analyses of non-canonical genitive case. It includes a discussion of both syntactic and semantic approaches. Some of these approaches concentrate on Genitive of Negation only, while others contribute a unified analysis of two or three types of genitive case. Among the accounts that will be considered is Bailyn’s (Genitive of negation is obligatory. In: Browne W, Dornisch E, Kondrashova N, Zec D (eds), Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: the Cornell meeting. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 2007) influential configurational analysis, according to which genitive, accusative and nominative cases are assigned in distinct syntactic positions, with the Neg(ation) head being responsible for the assignment of Genitive of Negation. The chapter further reviews Harves’ (Genitive of negation and the syntax of scope. In: van Koppen M, Thrift E, van der Torre EJ, Zimmerman M (eds), Proceedings of ConSOLE 9, pp 96–110, 2002a; Unaccusative syntax in Russian. PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2002b) configurational analysis, which is followed by a discussion of advantages and shortcomings of the configurational approach. I then turn to the Empty Quantifier approach developed by Pesetsky (Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, 1982). According to this account, both Partitive Genitive and Genitive of Negation are assigned by a phonologically empty quantifier. Additional analyses discussed in the chapter include Bailyn’s (The case of Q. In: Arnaudova O et al. (eds) Annual workshop on formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 12. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/nels/jbailyn/JFBailyn.html. 2004) unified account of genitive case, Pereltsvaig’s (Genitive of negation in Russian. In:Proceedings of IATL 13, pp 167–190, 1998; The genitive of negation and aspect in Russian. In: Rose Y, Steele J (eds), McGill working papers in linguistics 14: 111–140, 1999) approach that relates the choice of case under negation to the notion of referentiality, Neidle’s (The role of case in Russian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988) account that is based on the [Quantifying] feature and Borshev and Partee’s Perspectival Center approach to the genitive / nominative alternation under negation. The last section addresses the question of whether Genitive of Negation can be assigned to arguments of unaccusative verbs but not of unergative ones.

Irrealis Genitive in a Broader Context

This chapter puts Irrealis Genitive in a wider context of object case alternations. It includes a discussion of the cross-linguistic phenomenon of differential object marking (DOM). It reviews some of the recent linguistic literature on the topic and discusses several properties to which DOM is known to be sensitive (e.g. definiteness and animacy). The chapter further introduces the formal analysis of DOM proposed by Aissen (NLLT 21: 435–483, 2003) and raises the question of whether and how this analysis can be extended to account for the distribution of Irrealis Genitive in Russian. The next part of the chapter is devoted to an additional phenomenon that involves genitive objects in Russian. These are genitive complements of intensive reflexive verbs. The discussion of this phenomenon is based on Kagan and Pereltsvaig (Bare NPs and semantic incorporation: objects of intensive reflexives at the syntax-semantics interface. In: Browne W, Cooper A, Fisher A, Kesici E, Predolac N, Zec D (eds) Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL 18): The Cornell Meeting,pp 226–240. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 2011a; Syntax and semantics of bare NPs: objects of intensive reflexive verbs in Russian. In: Bonami O, Hofherr PC (eds) Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8 (Proceedings of CSSP 8), pp 221–238. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss8/kagan-pereltsvaig-eiss8.pdf, 2011b). I consider both the similarities between genitive objects of intensive reflexives and Irrealis Genitive nominals and those properties that distinguish between these two types of complements. The discussion is further extended to genitive objects of verbs that contain the prefix pere- under its sub-meaning of excess.

Subjunctive Mood and the Notion of Commitment

This chapter is devoted to subjunctive mood, a phenomenon which shares a number of important properties with Irrealis Genitive. First, the chapter introduces the subjunctive/indicative contrast in Romance languages and in Russian on a descriptive level. The introduction is followed by a detailed review of the analysis of subjunctive complement clauses proposed by Farkas ( Assertion, belief and mood choice. Paper presented at the workshop on Conditional and Unconditional Modality, ESSLLI, Vienna, 2003). This analysis, formulated within the framework of dynamic semantics, relates subjunctive mood to the absence of commitment to either truth or falsity of the proposition they contribute. A distinction is introduced between strong intensional verbs (e.g. epistemic and fiction predicates), whose complements are indicative, and weak intensional verbs (e.g. desideratives and directives), which do license subjunctive mood. I further consider the way in which Farkas’ analysis can be extended to account for the choice of mood in additional environments.

Non-Canonical Genitive: How Many Cases?

This chapter introduces the phenomenon of genitive objects and the genitive / accusative alternation in Russian. Three types of genitive objects are considered: Partitive Genitive, Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive. I further argue for a reorganization of this phenomenon. I claim that, as originally proposed by Neidle (Neidle, Carol. 1988. The Role of Case in Russian Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), Genitive of Negation and Intensional Genitive constitute two instantiations of the same phenomenon and should be provided a unified account. The two types of genitive case-assignment are characterized by the same semantic tendencies, are licensed in the presence of a local non-veridical operator and exhibit essentially the same pattern of historical development and cross-linguistic distribution. It is concluded that these types of genitive instantiate the same phenomenon, which will be refered to as Irrealis Genitive and which will constitute the focus of the present study. It is further argued that Partitive Genitive does not constitute another instance of Irrealis Genitive, as it differs substantially from the other types of non-canonical genitive case in terms of its properties.

Irrealis Genitive: Formulating the Analysis

In this chapter, I put forward the analysis of Irrealis Genitive that will be further argued for in the following chapters. Genitive objects are analyzed as property-denoting. Further, I argue that the availability of this case is sensitive to the notion of commitment to existence. Two types of existential commitment are distinguished: Absolute Existential Commitment (AEC), commitment to existence in the actual world, and Relative Existential Commitment (REC), commitment to existence relative to the modal base introduced by an intensional predicate. I formulate a restriction on the use of Irrealis Genitive according to which this case is licensed in the absence of REC. The chapter also includes a discussion of additional, non-semantic factors that affect Case-assignment, with which the semantic properties interact. These factors include variation in native speakers’ judgmnetns, which, in turn, is interrelated with language change taking place in Russian, register contrasts, and idiosyncratic properties of intensional verbs.

The Interaction of Case with Aspect and Number

Chapter 7investigates the ways in which the choice of case is affected by aspect and number. Irrealis Genitive tends to be assigned to plural nominals, rather than to singular ones, and to complements of imperfective, rather than perfective, verbs. It will be shown that under negation, singular objects as well as objects of perfective verbs exhibit a tendency to carry existential commitment, a factor that rules out Irrealis Genitive. I argue that this tendency is derived from the semantically marked status of perfective aspect and singular morphology, compared to the default imperfective and plural forms.

Irrealis Genitive and Relative Existential Commitment: Part 2

Chapter 6extends the discussion to negative environments. It argues that the REC restriction affects case selection under negation. Evidence is provided from sentences with different types of verbs and nominal complements. I further discuss genitive case-assignment to proper names, which, although highly restricted, can be sometimes observed under negation. I argue that this phenomenon can be reconciled with the proposed analysis. In particular, it is proposed that these nominals can appear in Irrealis Genitive only in those environments in which the relevant domain of existence undergoes a shift from a possible world as a whole to a given spatiotemporal location. (The notion of such a relativization is largely based on the approach to existential sentences formulated in Borschev and Partee (Formal and lexical semantics and the genitive in negated existential sentences in Russian. In: Boskovic J, Franks S, Snyder W (eds) Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1998).) Existential commitment in these environments is reinterpreted as commitment to existence in a salient location, while such a commitment does not obligatorily characterize proper names. Finally, I list a number of interpretational parallels that can be observed between genitive objects and subjunctive clauses.

On Speaker Identifiability

In this paper, I investigate the notion of speaker identifiability, a term that is strongly associated with the pragmatic approach to specificity. Following Haspelmath 1997, I provide evidence from Russian for the linguistic relevance of speaker identifiability. In particular, I discuss two series of existential indefinites, koe- items and -to items, which are inherently specified as identifiable or not identifiable to the speaker. This specification is shown to be independent of such phenomena as the free-choice effect or narrow scope relative to another operator in the logical form of the sentence. I propose a formal analysis of speaker identifiability formulated within the framework of possible-world semantics. According to this account, an NP is speaker-identifiable if and only if it picks up the same individual in every possible world that is compatible with the speakers worldview. Speaker identifiability is analyzed as a condition on the relative scope of an existential operator that ranges over individuals and a universal quantifier which quantifies over a set of possible worlds introduced by the context. I also argue that the speaker (non-)identifiability meaning component contributed by the investigated items constitutes a conventional implicature.